Abstract
Greater service to society is trending in higher education everywhere in Europe. In the renewal of the European quality agreement, relations with the society- and student-centred teaching have become the subject of focus. Messages coming from the employers and students could be considered somewhat more “weightier”. We can get an idea of the direction where the universities could be heading in the coming decade from the assessment criteria considered important by them. In the context of external evaluation in higher education, the results reported in this chapter could mean greater trust especially in those universities where relations with the world of work (joint study programme development, internship, feedback from the graduates) have become a routine and where the students’ voice is influential inside the university both in assessing the quality of teaching and learning and in the operation of the organisation. As the general trend in external evaluation is to move from the external control (accreditation) increasingly towards supporting and trusting the internal quality system of an educational institution, it could be stated that those universities deserve to be trusted where relations with the world of work are functional and where the student community has become an acknowledged party in the development of the university. External evaluation thus supports the turnaround occurring in higher education in many countries: (re)valuation of teaching along with the universities turning their faces towards the society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429–440.
Bogt, H. J. T., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.
Burke, J., & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. (2005a). The three corners of the accountability triangle. Serving all, submitting to none. In J. Burke & Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Burke, J. (2005b). The many faces of accountability. In J. Burke & Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in crossnational perspective. Berkley: CA, University of California Press.
Conditions and Procedure for Institutional Accreditation. (2011). Approved by EKKA Higher Education Quality Assessment Council on 01.04.2011. http://ekka.archimedes.ee/files/IA_kord_14-1.pdf (accessed May 20, 2014).
Current and Future Trends in Higher Education. (2006). A study by HoF Wittenberg commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture. HoF Wittenberg, Institut für Hochschulforschung an der Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg.
Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (Eds.). (2010). Higher education dynamics 30. Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments. Amsterdam: Springer.
EQUIP. (2016). Comparative analysis of the ESG 2015 and ESG 2005. http://www.equip-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/EQUIP_comparative-analysis-ESG-2015-ESG-2005.pdf) (Accessed September 2, 2016).
Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020. (2014). Ministry of Education and Research: Tallinn. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/estonian_lifelong_strategy.pdf (Accessed September 5, 2017).
Espenberg, K., Puolokainen, T., & Lees, K. (2013). Õppejõudude ja teadustöötajate töölepingute sõlmimise ja töö kvaliteedi hindamise praktika analüüs. Tartu: TÜ sotsiaalteaduslike rakendusuuringute keskus RAKE.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
European Higher Education Area. (2005). The European higher education area: Achieving the goals. Bergen, May 19–20, 2005. Available at: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Bergen_Communique1.pdf (Accessed July 20, 2016).
European University Association. (2015). Trends. Learning and teaching in European Universities. http://eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_Trends_2015_web.pdf?sfvrsn=18 (accessed September 2, 2016).
Keeley, J., Christopher, A. N., Buskist, W. (2012). Emerging evidence for excellent teaching across borders. In J. E. Groccia, M. T. A. Alsudari, & W. Buskist (Eds.), Handbook of college and university teaching: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuther, T. (2002). A profile of ethical professor. Student views. College Teaching, 51(4).
Mägi, E., Kirss, L., Haaristo, H.-S., Nestor, M., & Batueva, V. (2013). Eesti õppejõud 2012. Taust, ajakasutus, töömotivatsioon, õpetamine, teadustöö ja rahulolu. Tallinn: Poliitikauuringute Keskus Praxis.
Nichols, J. (2012) The science professor as pastor? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, ASA, 4.
Peterson, R., Berenson, M., & Aijaz, R. (2011). An exploratory study: Is there anything good about rate my professor? In Proceedings of Northeast Decision Sciences Institute, April, 1178–2001.
Pitt, R., & Mewburn, I. (2016). Academic superheroes? A critical analysis of a academic job descriptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(1), 88–101.
Smith, G., & Anderson, K. (2005). Students’ ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(2), 115–136.
Townley, B. (1999). Practical reason and performance appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 3.
Udam, M. (2013). Meeting state, market and academic concerns: Challenge for external quality assurance of higher education institutions. Estonian case. Doctoral dissertation. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikool.
Udam, M., & Heidmets, M. (2013). Conflicting views on quality: Interpretations of ‘a good university’ by representatives of the state, the market and academia. Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 210–224.
Udam, M., Lauri, L., & Bach, T. (2014). Understanding the stakeholders’ perspective on the use and usefulness of external quality assurance reports. In T. Bach, D. Dragojevic, P. Findlay, S. Hering, L. Lauri, O. Lynch, Z. Olcen, & M. Udam (Eds.), Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports (EQArep) (pp. 10–25). Brussels, Belgium: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
University Reform, Time to Leave the Ivory Tower. (2015). A raft of new measures aims to make universities focus more on teaching. The Economist, November 14, 2015. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21678250.
University Teacher Competency Model Version 2. (2011). Tartu: SA Archimedes. http://primus.archimedes.ee/sites/default/files/oppejoud/padevusmudel_2011.pdf (accessed May 20, 2014).
Young, D. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heidmets, M., Udam, M., Vanari, K., Vilgats, B. (2018). Good University and Excellent Professor: Competing Quality Perspectives in Higher Education. In: Valsiner, J., Lutsenko, A., Antoniouk, A. (eds) Sustainable Futures for Higher Education. Cultural Psychology of Education, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96035-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96035-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96034-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96035-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)